Discipline seems to be what you're after.

When my dad told me to stop doing something, I stopped doing it. Because the consequences were guaranteed, and not fun.

Well, legislating can proceed in big steps or smaller steps. Some places tried a big step: mandatory mass surveillance on everything every does with any device. That backfired in the public opinion, and rightfully so. Now these places like California and Illinois are trying a YAGNI approach to this, trying to make the minimum necessary changes. Right now it's porn and microtransactions, but it's easy to see the same mechanism could be extended to games - and that wouldn't be bad. Alongside the setting to enable porn, there could be a setting to enable games, or a setting to disable the device after a certain hour.

I think part of the problem is that we decided at some point that 18 is an age where you become an adult, which for some things in life is honestly way too young and for some things maybe too old but nuance is hard.

It seems to me that giving young kids devices is a bad idea in general?

I'm not sure what the age is when not having one becomes a greater liability for them than having one but I really feel strongly that creating laws around this is clumsy and the issue is still generally poorly understood.

Let's not create laws around stuff we don't really understand well yet?

I'm not a parent so I wish I didn't have a dog in this fight but legislation like this forces me too.

For the cellular data issue, you can set a SIM pin so when the device is turned off and on, they need you to enter the pin to access cellular data

Have you thought about creating building a faraday cage into your house so all internet has to go through the router's hardline?

> The parent controls on devices is terrible.

Which is IMHO my take on what should be done.

1. require functioning parent controls (here its also worth considering the abuse of parent controls). A problem here is the absence of a proper competing market of (phone) operating systems...

2. use parent controls to "anchor"/set the age/age category. I.e. NOT age verification, just age indication.

3. propagate them similar but not the same as with the Californian law, where possible do the decision before starting a program/fully loading the website etc. (1)

4. allow exception to be set (incl. per "origin" i.e. app, but also sub app e.g. browser:<domain>), it's a parenting tool not a state enforced

5. make it explicitly a non goal for this to be "hard to hack" or anything like that, it's a parenting tool not a banking tool. Proper trust management in a parent child relationship still matters and replacing it with "technology" is unlikely to end up well.

6. where possible leave the decision to the parent controls

7. Age categories are geographically/standard/age scoped, for most apps/site they only have one age gate and can just list them, potentially with content group hints, e.g. `us:pg:13,horror;de:fsk:12,horror` if the the user is in idk. uk the parent controls can make the decision, which might involve parent settings. E.g. a German parent probably wants to treat `us:pg:13,violence` as 14+ and very conservative people in the US want to treat `de:fsk:12,non-erotic-nudity` as 16+. For apps which serve content on a feed it's more shitty as they really want to be given the age gate instead of providing the contents age on access. This doesn't mean that they can't check the age gate for every peace of content "when serving it" (pitching back control to the parents controls) but still need a general age category, which will leak parent controls country, most times that will happen anyway by IP country of origin. So should work?

8. IP country of origin != age gate law which should apply. While legally not fully wrong to treat the same parents would be very surprised if their parent control allow/forbid things when they are on a holiday trip or because their child connected to a VPN tunneled hot spot... This loops back to 6. to give the decisions to the parent controls instead of the app/site/service.

9. criminal liability for intentional miss-classification of age gates (the "intentional" part matter a lot here).

This bill isn't about actually solving a problem - it a feel-good measure aimed to make it appear that the legislator is actually doing something, in the same way that every other "it's for the children" law has been created.

Which is not to say it shouldn't be wholeheartedly opposed, but there's going to be pushback on that and it's going to be difficult to overcome.

I think its the murphy's law/hyrum's law and combine that with rebel nature and you really can't do nothing about it. The only thing one can do is maybe reduce the ease of things for example but I have a feeling that will only make things go through different mediums and I am not sure if banning all mediums might be the correct approach but that's up for debate.

Speaking from personal experience, To leave bad habits, I think that kids need identity change. Maybe one can try changing Identity with incentives and environment but perhaps maybe one can try changing Identity with having a thought process as well.

It's like, "teach a man how to fish and he can eat fish for the rest of his life" My point is, teach kids how to think and yes, even then, these addictions will happen but have faith within kids and give them support systems. Every addiction ultimately derives from a form of insecurity and sometimes its circular because the addiction becomes the point of insecurity and this is why addiction can be hard to get out of too. Ultimately, A kid all wants to know is that even with his flaws, he's accepted within society and that they can be successful (whatever-it-might-mean for them)

That being said, One of the best things the world can probably do is give a life of abundance-in-general to us. Not riches just "enough". Poor kids feel like they are helpless so they get addicted, Rich kids feel like nothing matters so they get addicted, the middle class kids are uncertain about their future and they get addicted as a form of gaining control (in my feelings)

Though, If I have to sum up everything that I wrote, it would be that please try leaving a better world for the next generation (us) and we will appreciate it and hopefully trying doing the same for our next generation too hopefully and many of those actions are individual, often-private. The world is feeling quite chaotic nowadays so I feel like nobody is prepared to deal with it and as such each generation copes up in one way or another and taking control from one another which is also relevant to the article.

The whole discussion is way too nuanced. One can write so much about it and this can also lead to action-paralysis. I had even written more words somehow responding to ya[0]

[0]: My Original Thoughts that got quite long also showing the action-paralysis/nuance of the problem too in a way [Took the most relevant points of discussion from it]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260312223938/https://privatebi...

It's actually two templates that are being copied by different states: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rmhxk1/i_pulled_the...

It's usually not a coincidence that several people or groups of people faced with similar environments perform similar actions. All the hikers ran away screaming around the same time, because they all saw the bear attack.

This Illinois law seems to be based on the California one, which is the completely unintrusive one with no mass surveillance or anything like that. It says every operating system must have a parental controls feature, to be enabled or disabled by the device owner, and every app must respect it.

In addition, unlike the California one, the Illinois one specifies certain specific things that must be parentally controlled, such as financial transactions, and addictive feeds. All of it can be overridden by the device owner without providing ID or anything. It also clearly specifies the penalty for a violation: it's to be treated as consumer fraud/unfair trading practices.

No doubt. There's some kind of extremely organized conspiracy to erode freedom worldwide by destroying general purpose computing and installing surveillance.

This junk has even showed up in my country. They used the exact same rationalizations. It was an obvious attempt to regulate social media in order to consolidate political power.

Whoever they are, they're staying VERY quiet. Usually, the group that's agitating for some stupid law or another isn't satisfied to simply slip it to lawmakers, they usually take to social media and post about how great the law is and praise said lawmaker for proposing it.

I'm watching, whoever you are. You can't hide forever. Your ego will eventually betray you.

Debian, Fedora et al. will just comply. It's really no problem to do so - it just requires an age input on the user creation page, and for that to be saved somewhere. Porn apps mustn't work if the user is under 18, but I don't think they distribute porn apps.

If you build your own operating system out of open-source parts, then of course you don't need to comply with consumer product law, since you're not making a consumer product.

If you import an operating system from outside of the US and sell it, responsibility for compliance is on you, like any other imported consumer product.

They don't matter. They'll be outlawed soon enough. Their ultimate objective is to make it illegal for a computer to run unauthorized software. One day they will make it so it's illegal for a computer to boot into a non-government approved operating system.

If there's any good intentions in the bill, I guess the end-state must be having a way to mark an account as a kid's account and have that user's access limited. This is what old parental controls look like on phones that can be handed off to kids.

And anyone who doesn't support this is obviously a child raping pedophile terrorist.

People are slowly realizing that the OSI, FSF, and Linux Foundation have become colonized by MBA flopouts, professional fleabags who jump from one 501(c)(3) to another, collecting a paycheck and laundering influence. If you took the board of the OSI, FSF, and Linux Foundation, and the boards of the World Wildlife Foundation, the ACLU, and the NRA, and scrambled them all, they would duly show up to work the next day and probably wouldn't notice anything beyond their desks being rearranged.

What do people think the chance is that someone from the OSI, FSF, or Linux Foundation WROTE this bill? Curious where people's mental models are at.

Over time, require trusted boot and a TPM. Require a signed age-verification cert to get tokens to access io devices and net. It feels like part of a long play to claw unregulated general purpose computing out of the hands of the masses. Or, at least, get as much as can be moved into the cloud which can be easily surveilled and shut down.

I'm actually interested in the more mundane things, like how would this play out with self check out? Calculators? Vending machines…

There's no identification in this bill. You know what makes me angrier than age verification requirements? People complaining about age verification requirements that don't exist.

From the General Assembly's website: https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?DocNum=3977&GAID...

I can access it fine? The site loads after a quick bot check.